ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps

Abstract

Reliable synthesis of the various rapidly expanding bodies of evidence is vital for the process of evidence-informed decision-making in environmental policy, practice and research. With the rise of evidence-base medicine and increasing numbers of published systematic reviews, criteria for assessing the quality of reporting have been developed. First QUOROM (Lancet 354:1896-1900, 1999) and then PRISMA (Ann Intern Med 151:264, 2009) were developed as reporting guidelines and standards to ensure medical meta-analyses and systematic reviews are reported to a high level of detail. PRISMA is now widely used by a range of journals as a pre-submission checklist. However, due to its development for systematic reviews in healthcare, PRISMA has limited applicability for reviews in conservation and environmental management. We highlight 12 key problems with the application of PRISMA to this field, including an overemphasis on meta-analysis and no consideration for other synthesis methods. We introduce ROSES (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses), a pro forma and flow diagram designed specifically for systematic reviews and systematic maps in the field of conservation and environmental management. We describe how ROSES solves the problems with PRISMA. We outline the key benefits of our approach to designing ROSES, in particular the level of detail and inclusion of rich guidance statements. We also introduce the extraction of meta-data that describe key aspects of the conduct of the review. Collated together, this summary record can help to facilitate rapid review and appraisal of the conduct of a systematic review or map, potentially speeding up the peer-review process. We present the results of initial road testing of ROSES with systematic review experts, and propose a plan for future development of ROSES.

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

“…With this limited information, the search process is insufficiently documented and replication is impossible. Hence, for systematic searches of platforms such as EbscoHost, OVID, ProQuest, and Web of Science, we remind authors that they must report the underlying databases and the indices they contain . Further, it is necessary to bear in mind that databases update frequently—sometimes multiple times a day or even on an hourly basis—thus the underlying dataset changes accordingly.…”

“…Hence, for systematic searches of platforms such as EbscoHost, OVID, ProQuest, and Web of Science, we remind authors that they must report the underlying databases and the indices they contain. 74 Further, it is necessary to bear in mind that databases update frequently-sometimes multiple times a day or even on an hourly basis-thus the underlying dataset changes accordingly. While most of the time the dataset will increase through the addition of records, databases can also shrink through the deletion of duplicates or the occurrence of errors that affect the dataset provided.…”

Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps

“…Efforts to record descriptive summary information regarding SR methods are underway (e.g., ROSES; Haddaway et al. ).…”

What evidence exists relating to effectiveness of ecotechnologies in agriculture for the recovery and reuse of carbon and nutrients in the Baltic and boreo-temperate regions? A systematic map protocol

“…The review will follow the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management [16] and it conforms to ROSES reporting standards [17] (see Additional file 1).…”